GIORGI GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al, Plaintiffs, v. WIESŁAW SMULSKI, et al, Defendants No. 17-4416 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Filed October 01, 2020 Counsel Andrew A. Chirls, Fineman Krekstein & Harris PC, Brian P. Flaherty, Peter Michael Ryan, Cozen O'Connor, Catherine M. Recker, Robert E. Welsh, Jr., Welsh & Recker, P.C., Thomas M. O'Rourke, Clark Hill PLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Barry Gross, William L. Carr, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants. Schmehl, Jeffrey L., United States District Judge ORDER *1 AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2020, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Compel (Docket No. 82), as well as Plaintiffs' opposition thereto and all replies, and after argument being held, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED only insofar as it seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce all documents relevant to the purpose for which Green Ventures, Ltd. was formed, including any documents and/or communications referencing Iran and Green Ventures, Ltd.; 3. Within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall produce any and all documents referencing the purpose for which Green Ventures, Ltd. was formed, including any documents referencing Iran; and 4. Defendants' Motion to Compel is DENIED in all other respects.[1] Footnotes [1] Defendants' Motion seeks production from Plaintiffs of “all Documents and Communications relating to, referencing, or concerning Your decision to conduct or not to conduct business in Iran and/or Your decision to cease to conduct business in Iran.” Defendants also seek “all Documents and Communications relating to, referencing, or concerning Your business in Iran, including Communications with the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.” Plaintiffs object to these requests, inter alia, as overbroad and not relevant. In response, Defendants argue that the information they are seeking is “relevant to at least three of Defendants' defenses and is therefore discoverable.” ECF No. 82, p. 2. Defendants argue this information is relevant as to Mr. Smulski's intent in destroying the data in question. Id. Plaintiffs claim Smulski's intent was to conceal his outsourcing scheme, while Defendants argue Smulski's intent was to “obstruct the investigation into Plaintiffs' divestment of Iranian assets,” seemingly to protect Plaintiffs. Id. Defendants argue that the circumstances under which Smulski deleted information from his computer is therefore relevant to Smulski's defenses to the Complaint, and they are therefore entitled to receive any and all documents regarding Plaintiffs' dealings with Iran. Defendants also argue that the Complaint claims Smulski formed Green Ventures, Ltd, as part of the scheme to acquire Plaintiffs' assets when in fact Smulski created Green Ventures to assist with installation of machinery in Plaintiffs' Iranian plant. Defendants argue that they are therefore entitled to discovery that would support Smulski's defense as to what Green Ventures was intended to do. Lastly, Defendants argue that information as to Plaintiffs' involvement in Iran is discoverable because the Complaint alleges that Smulski used an entity called PAPC to acquire Plaintiffs' assets improperly. Defendants argue that PAPC, which happened to also have Iranian operations, outsourced spare parts, etc. to Can-Pack's subsidiaries in order to mitigate Can-Pack's U.S. tax obligations. Therefore, Defendants argue that PAPC's operations in Iran are germane to their defense that Defendants did business with Can-Pack's subsidiaries with full knowledge of the Can-Pack Supervisory Board. It is true that a party is permitted to obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. C. P. 26(b)(1). “While the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is broad, it is not unlimited,” and “[d]iscovery should be tailored to the issues involved in the particular case.” Atkinson v. Luitpold Pharm., Inc., 414 F.Supp.3d 742, 744 (E.D. Pa. 2019). In the instant matter, I find that Defendants' requests are relevant to the extent they seek information as to the reasons for the formation of Green Ventures, Ltd. If Iran is involved in any way or factors into those reasons, any documents or communications relating to Iran and the reason for the formation of Green Ventures must be produced by Plaintiffs. However, I find that the remainder of Defendants' requests are blatantly overbroad and impermissible. Defendants first argue that Smulski destroyed the data on his computer not to conceal an asset-stripping scheme, but to protect Plaintiffs by obstructing an investigation into Plaintiffs' assets in Iran, and therefore, anything in Plaintiffs' possession related to Iran is relevant. There is conflicting evidence as to Smulski's intent in destroying the data on his computer, but assuming arguendo that Smulski's intent was to protect Plaintiffs, Defendants' requests are still overbroad and improper. Any and all documents relating to Plaintiffs' business in Iran, decision to cease doing business in Iran and/or concerning Plaintiffs' business in Iran is simply too broad of a request, without further limitation. Further, Defendants request for all communications between Plaintiffs and the DOJ is also overly broad, and without relevance to Smulski's alleged intent in destroying the data on his computer. There is no reasonable link between Smulski's assertions regarding his true intent in destroying the data on his computer and Defendants demands for all documents about Iran and all DOJ communications. Therefore, this part of the motion to compel is denied. As to Defendants' argument about PAPC, I find it too lacks merit. The mere fact that PAPC, a Can-Pack subsidiary, happened to operate in Iran does not make any and all documents in Plaintiffs' possession regarding Iran relevant and discoverable. Defendants are unable to articulate a legitimate reason why this information is discoverable, and I will not order it to be produced. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall produce any information in their possession relevant to the formation of Green Ventures, Ltd. as it relates to Iran. All other discovery requests are denied.